"My dear Nachum," wrote Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to
Histadrut Chairman Dr. Nachum Goldman in the 1950s. "This
sets a precedent as it is the first time in the history of
relations between nations that a large nation has agreed, due
to moral pressure alone, to pay compensation to the victims
of the previous government.

"This is the first time in the history of the Jewish people,
which for hundreds of years has been the victim of
persecution, oppression, pillage and plunder in the nations
of Europe, that the persecutor and the plunderer has been
forced to return a portion of the spoils and has even agreed
to pay collective reparations for part of the material damage
done. This, beyond any doubt, is a result of the resurrection
of the State of Israel. The rights of Jews are no longer
hefker. Now an advocate and a patron has risen up to
defend them . . . "

Fifty years ago, less than seven years after the Holocaust,
the Prime Minister of Israel, in the name of the state he
established in Eretz Yisroel, granted himself the right to
speak as nearly the sole representative of the Jewish people,
as its advocate and patron. Time has shattered the illusion
that the State of Israel is the defender of the Jewish people
in the Diaspora, but the State continues to pose as the
"advocate of the Jewish people" in monetary matters and the
heir to the millions of Jews who perished during the
Holocaust.

Ben Gurion's remarks contain another distortion as well.
Today it has become known--and in all likelihood it was also
known in the 1950s--that the German government's decision to
pay reparations was not the result of "moral pressure alone,"
but primarily of political and economic pressure. The "new"
Germany, which had just released itself from the domination
of the leading allied nations, wanted to gain international
recognition for divorcing itself from its Nazi past. It also
requested economic aid for rehabilitation, primarily from the
United States, and this aid was given through the arrangement
of reparations for the Jewish people. Germany wanted to turn
over a new leaf, despite the fact that a short time before
many of its citizens had been Nazi killers.

The Beginnings

This is how it all began. On the 22 of Teves 5712 (January
20, 1952), just over fifty years ago, in a vote of 61 to 50,
the Knesset decided to begin negotiations over a reparations
agreement with Germany.

Less than seven years after the attempted annihilation, "with
the air still carrying the stench of corpses burned in the
gas chambers," as Dov Shilansky describes it today, the State
of Israel decided to sit down at the negotiating table with
representatives of the murderers. Yet not everyone was in
accord with the decision.

Dov Shilansky, later Knesset chairman from the Likud, was a
26-year-old Holocaust survivor at the time. Menachem Begin
was an MK and chairman of the Cheirut Movement. Both of them
are remembered for leading the mass protest against the
agreement. It was a very emotional and divisive issue.

Begin organized mass assemblies in city squares, while his
listeners and supporters were still wearing yellow patches.
He roused violent opposition. In a speech at Jerusalem's Zion
Square on Asoro BeTeves 5712 he said: "When you shot at us
[on the Altalena], I gave the order, `No!' Today I am
giving the order, `Yes!' This will be a war for life or
death. They say that we are pretending fury, but thousands of
people standing here in the driving rain are living testimony
that the fury of the people broke out spontaneously.

"Today a Hebrew Prime Minister is standing up to announce
that he will go to Germany to receive money, that he will go
sell the honor of Am Yisroel for ill-gotten gains and
to cast eternal disgrace upon them. Every German is a killer.
Every German is a Nazi . . . "

But his speeches had no effect on Ben Gurion, who saw this
money as a lifesaver for the hunger of the Austerity Period,
for the hundreds of thousands of new immigrants whose tents
flapped in the storm winds of the difficult winter of 5712
and --certainly not least - - a decent basis for the
establishment of Mapai in Israel.

At times the great pain they felt was expressed through
desperate measures. To make a resounding show of objection
Dov Shilansky detonated a small bomb at the Foreign Ministry.
He spent six months in jail for his crime, but this time in
jail merely bolstered his opposition to the agreement that
was to exchange hatred for money.

"When they went to their deaths with blood spilling from
their hearts, the Jews wrote, `Yidden, nekomoh!' not
`Yidden, nemt gelt [take money]!'" says Dov
Shilansky.

Shilansky Recalls

When asked whether in hindsight he thinks the reparations
agreement should have been rejected, Shilansky says, "Future
generations will be ashamed that the State of Israel signed
the agreement."

The years have had their effect however, and today Shilansky
distinguishes between the reparations agreement through which
the State of Israel received compensation (much of it in the
form of German goods whose production also helped
rehabilitate German industry) and the compensation payments
given to individuals for their suffering or the loss of their
property.

"Both as a Jew and as a Holocaust survivor I objected to the
fact that the State of Israel, in the name of the Jewish
people and in the name of the Holocaust victims and
survivors, stretched out its hand and made a pact with
Germany seven years after the end of the Holocaust. It
declared pardon and forgiveness on a bridge of Deutsche marks
and gave Germany a sign of acceptance before the nations of
the world. We took money in exchange for blood. As a
Holocaust survivor I did not authorize anyone to forgive the
German people."

At the same time, claims Shilansky, the negotiators neglected
the issue of the return of Jewish property, both private and
communal. Only now, fifty years later, when this property has
already been passed from one hand to another, are they
beginning to demand the return of property and even this is
not being done very energetically.

There was also severe neglect in the area of individual
compensation for Jewish slave-laborers in the work,
concentration and death camps. Shilansky says that in 1948,
shortly before the founding of the State of Israel, the
United States' General Clay, appointed by the Allies to rule
over Germany after the war, issued instructions to compensate
Holocaust refugees for their work in the ghettos and the
camps. Then the State was founded, negotiations with the
Germans began and the money was never paid.

"The reparations," adds Shilansky, "led us to moral decline.
Easy money always corrupts. Various public figures sat around
the pot and dipped their fingers in. Mapai institutions used
it to build themselves. Our moral corruption began with this
money, and has continued ever since."

It is hard to say that the New Yishuv was free of corruption
before the reparations. It suffices to mention Mapai
favoritism and the Histadrut's red-book terror. [In the 1930s
and 40s members of the Histadrut party had little red
membership booklets, and party members who flashed a
Histadrut booklet were given preferential treatment by many
prospective employers.] Back then there were also plenty of
public figures who lived well at the public's expense, eating
two eggs a day when the public was rationed only one egg per
week, but at least the official norm was modest.

The individual reparations were particularly harmful to the
social fabric of the kibbutzim. Kibbutz members who received
compensation payments were required to deposit them in the
collective kibbutz treasury. Some did so against their will,
some got involved in disputes and left the kibbutz and some
were allowed to receive them. In all of these cases, however,
the principle of equality that characterized kibbutzim at the
time was infringed upon, and this may have been the beginning
of the end of the kibbutz concept.

Another Perspective

Michael (accent over the "e") Kleiner is currently one of the
main activists working on the issue of compensation payments,
property return, and similar issues for Holocaust survivors.
We also asked him whether in hindsight he would have signed
the reparation payments.

"There are many sides to this issue," says Kleiner in his
measured speech. "Of course there was apprehension from
national, educational and moral perspectives. It was
understandable, for we were a young nation. Perhaps from a
detached perspective, the agreement was justifiable. But I
still do not have a clear answer and I still think that if it
had been up to me, I would not have been able to decide.

"On a practical level it could be that this planted the seeds
of the two calamities we live with today. 1) That the State
of Israel, where only a small percentage of the Jewish people
lived at the time, allowed all kinds of organizations to
handle the compensation funds [a reference to the Claims
Committee], so that today the State has little say in the
matter. 2) The right various Jews gave themselves--
ostensibly for the common good--to seize stolen-property
rights that really belonged to individual Holocaust
survivors. This injustice lasts to this day. More than 55
years after the War ended, Jewish organizations are still
allowed to maintain staffs at the expense of those rights
holders. They establish themselves as heirs even when there
are real heirs."

The Chareidi Perspective

What was the chareidi community's position on the issue of
German reparations? In his book Mikatovitz Ad Hei
Be'Iyar, Rav Tzvi Weinman summarizes the matter based on
various documents. He writes that in Tishrei 5712 (1951), the
International Executive Committee of Agudas Yisroel met to
discuss this question and decided "to make every effort to
secure the chareidi community's share" -- but the Moetzes
Gedolei Hatorah in the U.S. decided otherwise. At a gathering
in New York HaRav Kamenetsky announced, "The majority
decision sides with the opinion of HaRav Aharon Kotler, who
opposed all negotiations with Germany even if large sums of
reparations can be obtained."

In response to questions posed by one representative who
stated that there are various laws in Germany on the issue,
HaRav Kamenetsky replied: "One can file suit against a killer
and a thief and receive damages from him, but one cannot
conduct negotiations with killers and receive something that
rewards horrific acts. HaRav Kotler is concerned that the
Government of Israel wants to put an end to Germany's
culpability and to establish friendly relations between the
two peoples. Chareidi Jewry should not participate in this
endeavor."

After demonstrating the farsightedness of gedolei
Yisroel, Rav Weinman adds that the Moetzes Gedolei
Hatorah in Israel did not issue a decision, and therefore
Agudas Yisroel decided to abstain from the vote in the
Knesset. Following pressure by Ben Gurion, one MK eventually
voted in favor.

To complete the picture, Rav Weinman quotes an excerpt from
Orechos Rabbenu Baal Kehillos Yaakov by Rav Avraham
Horovitz (p. 272), according to which the Steipler permitted
individuals to accept money from the Memorial Foundation for
Jewish Culture (set up using reparations money) to fund the
publication of a sefer kodesh. The Steipler cited the
Brisker Rov who said they should take the German reparations
money since it was derived from property stolen from the
Jews, "and it would not be considered a zechus for the
reshoim that a sefer kodesh is published using
their money because what they give back is just a tiny
portion of what they stole."

To this day chareidi Jewry has not received its due share of
the reparations money. Though a significant percentage of the
Jews who perished during the Holocaust were shomrei
mitzvos and most of the Jewish communal property in
Eastern Europe was religious property--botei knesses,
botei medrash, cemeteries, mikva'os,
hekdesh, and the like--chareidi Jewry has only
received the crumbs left by various activists. During the
period of the Jewish Agency's active involvement in the
distribution of these funds, Agudas Yisroel representatives
complained about the manner in which the money was
handled.

At an Executive Committee meeting, the following resolution
was issued: "Agudas Yisroel's position on the issue of
reparations is well known, but it is also a well-known fact
that chareidi Jewry, organized and represented by Agudas
Yisroel in thousands of institutions, suffered the greatest
losses and now that reparations for compensation and
rehabilitation of the destruction are being distributed, the
Jewish Agency has neglected to support Agudas Yisroel
institutions and members. . . If our demands are not met, we
will take whatever steps necessary to save as much as
possible for chareidi Jewry."

Apparently the steps taken were not particularly formidable,
for the discrimination exists to this day.

Anticipating the Money

As horrific as it may sound, at the height of the War, while
Jews were being led to the gas chambers, Zionist
organizations considered the financial benefits to be gained.
As early as 1941 Dr. Nachum Goldman, chairman of the World
Jewish Congress, said European Jews would eventually be
entitled to war reparations.

In 1944 the Congress drew up clear demands: a) Compensation
for Jewish communities and individual Jewish survivors. b)
Recognition in principle of the right of the Jewish people to
receive collective reparations for the material and moral
losses to the Jewish people, its institutions or individual
Jews.

These general demands are recorded in the memoirs Dr. Goldman
published much later, but it appears that in fact the guiding
principles for negotiations with the Germans had already been
drafted at that point. At the time Goldman did not know that
the State of Israel would be founded and therefore probably
hoped to represent the Jewish people, either alone or else
through a joint representation with the Jewish Agency, the
Histadrut, etc.

But when the State of Israel was set up, Ben Gurion crowned
himself representative of the Jewish people, leaving Goldman
nothing to do but to conduct the secret negotiations that
preceded West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's public
announcement of his willingness to pay reparations, and then
to hand the conductor's baton over to Ben Gurion. Goldman was
not left idle, for the agreement stated that the negotiations
would be conducted through two channels: the Material Claims
Conference of the Jewish People was set up to conduct
negotiations for individual Holocaust survivors and an
Israeli delegation was dispatched to negotiate the
reparations that would be paid to the State treasury as the
homeland of the Jewish people. Dr. Nachum Goldman was named
head of the Claims Conference.

Dr. Goldman set up the Claims Conference himself just as the
negotiations proposal was passed in the Knesset. He selected
representatives arbitrarily, based on connections, although
he did try to include representatives from various
organizations including the Joint Distribution Committee, The
Jewish Agency, World Jewish Congress, American Jewish
Congress, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Workers'
Committee (U.S.), American Veterans' Association, etc. Most
of the representatives were from the U.S., England, Australia
and South Africa. A representative for the Reform Movement
was also selected. Israeli representatives were not chosen--
since ostensibly Israel was represented by the government-
sponsored delegation--nor were any Holocaust survivors
chosen. It seems the latter were perceived as sick and feeble
invalids incapable of representing themselves.

The irony is that this attitude persisted until about ten
years ago, when the Center for Holocaust Survivors'
Organizations was set up. The Center applied massive pressure
that managed to get four of their representatives onto the
Claims Conference. The other representatives came from
various other organizations, some of which are no longer in
existence.

The Claims Conference

"The state of affairs at the time has to be taken into
account," says Claims Conference President Dr. Azriel Miller
to Uri Yaakov, spokesman for the Center for Holocaust
Survivors' Organizations, in an interview published in the
Center's monthly magazine Mizkar ["Memorandum"].
"Jewish negotiators stood opposite German counterparts, who
claimed that under no circumstances would they be able to pay
any more. They also made clear that stubbornness over various
details would endanger the entire agreement. Anyone who says
that under the same circumstances he could have secured a
better agreement is fooling himself . . . "

Dr. Miller's remarks follow claims lodged for years against
various paragraphs of the agreement that deprived whole
groups of Holocaust survivors. This was the first time Jews
conducted negotiations on such a large scale, with no
precedent to serve as a learning experience. At the time the
profile of the Holocaust survivors as a group was unclear.
Many of them, for example, refused to accept reparations for
years as a matter of principle, but now, in their old age,
they have had to knock on the doors of the various
organizations to obtain their rights.

Some of the grievances are less easily dismissed. Raul
Teitelbaum, a reporter and Holocaust survivor who is closely
involved in the matter and serves on various committees,
says, "In terms of compensation payments for forced labor,
the Jewish establishment is responsible for a failure that
will go down in history. This is one of the major failures of
the Claims Conference and, as a result, [the heirs of]
hundreds of thousands of deceased Jews who performed forced
labor will not be eligible for any compensation."

The rights of former concentration camp prisoners who
performed forced labor were essentially signed away in the
agreement of September 10th, 1952. According to this
agreement, "The victims of persecution who performed forced
labor and lived in prison conditions are to be handled as
just a denial of their freedom." In other words, this
paragraph stipulates that such prisoners would only be
entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty:
five Deutsche marks per day of imprisonment, while typical
wages for a day's work at the time came to 150 Deutsche
marks.

The outrageous agreement, adds Teitelbaum, was to be taken
from the money given to the Claims Conference, and therefore
over the years, they were given hush money to keep the issue
from surfacing. Only in very recent years has it forced its
way onto the negotiating table following class action suits
filed in U.S. courts by seasoned lawyers who made a sizable
profit out of these cases.

Even later Claims Conference members continued to use a
better-one-in-the-hand-than-two-in-the-bush approach. The
uniting of Germany in 1990 provided an opening for claims
from the former East Germany, which had previously ignored
the issue. In order to avoid a new agreement, it was decided
to insert Germany's pledge to pay compensation for the former
East Germany as a separate paragraph. This paragraph, known
as Chapter Two, allowed a new source of very meager funds to
leak through. Thus a low-income criterion was added, although
the payment was supposed to be universal compensation rather
than an assistance payment.

The return of Jewish property was also a major failure,
particularly in the area of real estate. Over the course of
the years, laws designed to hinder the return of real estate
holdings were legislated in various countries. Former
Communist countries in Eastern Europe place an array of
insurmountable obstacles and stipulations. Germany has also
bogged down the procedure. Personal property has not been
returned in almost any case, and communal property has also
been difficult to reacquire.

According to the various agreements, existing kehillos
are authorized to sell the property, a serious problem that
goes beyond the scope of this article. Even when Jewish
organizations do sell, a major question remains: What should
be done with the money?

In the former East Germany, the Claims Conference distributes
approximately $100 million annually from the sale of Jewish
property with no rightful heir. According to Conference
regulations, 80 percent of these funds are designated for
financial assistance and medical care for Holocaust survivors
around the world, and 20 percent are dedicated to memorials
and Holocaust studies. Who decides which institutions benefit
from this 20 percent? Who sets the eligibility criteria for
medical assistance?

Kleiner cites an example of the type of injustices that take
place today. There is an organization called WeCheck that
handles claims against insurance companies. This organization
received some 70,000 claims to review. Of these, 27,000
claims were immediately tossed into the trash. Why? Because
they were submitted by residents of the former Soviet Union.
Organization heads claim that since the insurance companies
did not operate in the Soviet Union after the Communist
Revolution in 1917, there could not possibly be policy-
holders from the Holocaust period.

"Maybe they took out insurance in other countries," Kleiner
points out. "Maybe they took out policies in Poland and fled
to Russia during the War. If a computerized system is already
in operation, what difference does it make to check these
policies as well? Maybe you're depriving some needy Jews?"

In addition to the grievances regarding the distribution of
funds by the Claims Conference, over the years serious claims
have been lodged against the Israeli government. The greatest
injustice has been the discrimination against Holocaust
survivors in Israel who receive compensation from the Finance
Ministry, compared to those who receive income directly from
Germany.

Says Shilansky, "Along comes the Israeli government [in the
50s] and says to Germany, `Give us a one-time payment for
Holocaust survivors and we will hand it out,' and then takes
the money. Later they gave Holocaust survivors one-fourth of
what they would have received if this agreement had never
taken place. I ask you: Did anyone authorize them? Why did
you make a deal in my name?" (See box for details.)

Shilansky recalls how he stood on the Knesset rostrum and
cried out, "All of us are thieves. We eat the bread of
Holocaust survivors, people who are sick and tired and
poor."

The government and the organizations of course play a larger
role in handling the reparations. All of the agreements set
aside a certain percentage of money for clauses such as
"support of organizations" or "Holocaust studies," while
others allow the government to inherit money earmarked for
survivors who passed away over the course of the years.

This is what is now happening with the Swiss banks fund.
Totaling $250 million (which is gathering interest in the
meantime), the fund was supposed to pay for accounts left
dormant in Swiss banks and also to Holocaust survivors based
on various criteria. In every other country in the world
these funds were distributed long ago, but in Israel the
payments were delayed, presumably due to a dispute over
distribution. "The state has a good thing going," says
Shilansky. "In the meantime other survivors are passing away
and the money remains in state coffers." According to recent
reports, there were even proposals to return a portion of the
unused funds to Switzerland to avoid accusations of greed.

Another scheme was the Jewish People Foundation, to which
heirless funds were channeled, and again the Holocaust
survivors raised the same objection: Who put you in charge?
Who named you heir? Why not divide these sums among those who
are still alive?

Organizational Money

The biggest question mark hovers over the issue of the
distribution of funds earmarked for organizations and
institutions. When the reparations began the following
division was formulated: 57 percent to the Jewish Agency, 28
percent to the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), 11 percent
to organizations that care for former German nationals and
just 4 percent of the total allocations were dedicated to
religious projects like construction of botei knesses,
halachic research, sifrei kodesh, and the like. No
monies were channeled to chareidi organizations that take in
Holocaust survivors.

Rav Sokolovsky is the director of Ginzach Kiddush Hashem, an
institution in Bnei Brak which should meet any reasonable
eligibility criteria to receive major support from all of the
various foundations. Certainly it deserves at least a modest
building, if not on the scale of the Yad Vashem complex, at
least a decent building. Yet the Ginzach is still housed in
several rooms of a building that writer Rav Moshe Prager
donated to the Gerrer Institutions, and he pays the rent.
"Once I received a modest sum from the Claims Conference, and
nothing for current expenses," says Rav Sokolovsky.

So far the Ginzach, one of the only chareidi Holocaust
education centers in existence, has had to subsist on a small
budget provided by the Ministry of Science and large deficit
spending. Rav Sokolovsky is unaware of any chareidi
organization that has received support from the Claims
Conference, with the exception of Ezer Letzion, which is not
specifically for the chareidi community.

"Corruption," says Rabbi Avrohom Ravitz, who is actively
involved in Israel in returning property, the Generali Fund
and other related issues. "The allocations are carried out in
a very undemocratic fashion. Why are lists of recipients not
publicized? Why is the money held in inner pockets?
Everything should be disclosed. These are not someone's
private funds. And in any case, if there is no ordered system
of allocation, this is corruption, and if monies are
allocated without notifying the public, this is also
corruption."

Antisemitism?

Is the constant involvement in monetary demands creating an
image of the money-grabbing Jew and increasing antisemitism?
The answer is a resounding "yes," but many of those involved
in the issue, such as Dr. Avi Becker, general secretary of
the World Jewish Congress, remain untroubled by this
question. They claim this just provides an opportunity for
antisemites to vent what they normally keep to themselves,
but does not add to the antisemitism.

Dov Shilansky also has few reservations. All we are asking
for is what was stolen from us, he says; the effort is
worthwhile not only because we need the money, but also to
prevent non-Jews from benefiting from stolen property.

Antisemitism, he says, is present in every generation, with
or without reasons. "What I learned from the Holocaust is
that when a goy says he wants to annihilate you,
believe him."

The Reparations Agreements

In the agreement reached between Israel and Germany in the
early 1950s, the Germans undertook to transfer $833 million
over a 12-year period and in the form of goods only.

With this, the State of Israel took huge steps in the
development of its infrastructure -- railway tracks and
coaches, a merchant fleet, equipment for industry and the
electricity economy, and more.

Germany, for its part, made significant progress on its way
to rehabilitation and acceptance as a legitimate nation.

Together with the collective agreement with the state, a
personal compensation agreement for the individual Holocaust
survivors around the world was signed at the same time. In
it, the Germans insisted that Israel be responsible for
paying compensation to Holocaust survivors who came to the
country "up until January 1953."

Raul Teitelbaum, a journalist and a member of the umbrella
organization of Holocaust survivors in Israel, notes that
Israel consented to such a condition both because it feared
losing the agreement in its entirety and due to the fact that
officials at the Treasury estimated that it pertained to only
a small group of people, around 3,000 in all.

In practice, however, just in the calendar year 2000 alone,
the state paid monthly allowances based on this clause to
some 50,000 individuals, at a total cost of $400 million!
Over the past two years alone, the State of Israel has paid
out compensation to Holocaust survivors in an amount almost
equal to the full sum it received in the reparation agreement
(in nominal terms).

The most astounding detail, according to Teitelbaum, is the
fact that German legislation related to the agreements, makes
no mention at all of the Jews as a group which is entitled to
such reparation; it only speaks of individuals "who were
persecuted by the Nazi regime on the grounds of race,
religion or political viewpoint," he says.

The Germans haggled over every detail, usually ending in
total capitulation on the Israeli side. For example, Israel
initially demanded $1.5 billion, based on a calculation of
500,000 Holocaust survivors at a rate of $3,000 per
immigrant.

Both estimations were low, yet the Germans still rejected
them. They immediately cut the numbers by a third, arguing
that they were the responsibility of East Germany, which
constituted one-third of the German people. Thereafter they
requested more reductions, bringing the compensation down to
its eventual $833 million.

Even more humiliating was the agreement by Israel that
monthly allowances (pensions) from Germany (as opposed to the
lump sum) would be afforded only to "people of German
culture."

Teitelbaum: "This clause distorted the entire significance of
the reparation and gave rise to an absurd situation in which
the ones who had suffered the most received the least. The
dead got nothing; survivors from Eastern Europe, who had
suffered the harshest conditions for the longest period of
time, only received a small one-off payment; while the German
Jews, many of whom had fled Germany before the Holocaust and
were spared the threat of extermination, were the only ones
who were afforded monthly allowances."

The one-off payment given to the remaining survivors was also
determined in humiliating fashion, based on a "compensation
rate" of DM 5 (slightly more than a dollar in 1951 terms) for
each day spent in a concentration camp or ghetto.

Noah Flug, secretary-general of the umbrella organization of
Holocaust survivors in Israel, says one of the Jewish
participants in the negotiations told him how the rate was
determined. "He told me that his initial demand was for
compensation of DM 150 a day, equal to the wage of a German
laborer at the time. He says that Adenauer went pale and
started to tremble, explaining that the German economy could
not afford such a sum and that he could only agree to
symbolic compensation. Then he mentioned the amount of DM 5 a
day. Nachum Goldman didn't consult with anyone and hurriedly
agreed, and so the sum was born," Flug relates.

Officially, the grounds for the reparations were also given
as "denial of freedom" to the Jews. The agreements also
explicitly released Germany of any responsibility for
compensation for forced labor during the Holocaust.

Taking everything into account, Teitelbaum argues that both
those who opposed the agreement and those who supported it
were right.

"The opponents were right in saying that the agreement
afforded Germany rehabilitation at a low price, albeit much
higher than the Germans themselves estimated. They thought
that all the agreements would cost them around DM 7
billion."

In the end, so far they have paid -- prior to the
establishment of the latest fund for compensating the forced
laborers of DM 10 billion -- more than DM 100 billion.

"On the other hand, Ben Gurion was right in saying that the
agreements allowed Israel to develop vital infrastructure
during the initial years of the state."